Excellent work Clark.Now I need you to answer these 5 questions for me.Take your time and elaborate as much as you want.
1) Is there a 'me', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works.
3) How does it feel to see this? describe in detail.
4) How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion but is curious about it.
5) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look? was there a specific moment when seeing happened or was it gradual? what exactly happened?
Looking for my self
Re: Looking for my self
Hi Andrew,
I typed this on the flight to Barcelona. It was a good opportunity to reflect and refine the understanding. So here goes...
1) Is there a 'me', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
No. There was an assumption that "I" existed but nothing more. That assumption was based largely on the dependence on self referential semantics in language and the observation of behavioral patterns extrapolated to imply an actual form expressing those patterns, where there was none. Ever.
If there are any lingering doubts that this understanding is honest then those doubts are immediately seen for what they are, spontaneously arising thoughts in the mind. I don't doubt because there is no me.
2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works.
I have frequently referred to a flock of birds in this discussion. I remember in college watching a flock move and flow as if it were one organism. I suddenly understood that there was no such organism. There was observation of a pattern but that's all. There was no more than a bunch of separate birds behaving in a social concert that appeared the the observer to have inherent form. After that I could see it in all collections: the rich, children, Libertarians, Buddhists, women, teams, marriage, even a comic book collection. It became clear that these were all just mental models for implied relationships within observed collections of things manifest, not anything manifest of itself. But I never applied it to myself until now.
What happens is a subtle trick that follows from an unquestioned assumption of the existence of a manifest identity, or character. But just because something can be described doesn't mean it can be observed. It only means that it can be conceived. And that's the trick; mistaking a conception of self for a perception of self. There is no perception of self; only conception.
It probably starts at a young age with the introduction of language. The structure of language uses "I" and "me" as nouns when they are actually closer to verbs. As the language is learned the programming begins. Parents, teaches and friends observe patterns of behavior in others and say "You are this and that", be it complimentary or not. Advertising tells us what to identify with as a boy or a girl. As children we pick up on the tone of these statements and incorporate them into our idea of self. After a while that idea becomes so full it seems to have tangible reality; a reality that must be self consistent in order to have the appearance of existence. It takes a lot of effort to maintain a coherent self image so when it is threatened by conflicting thoughts the dissonance causes even more effort to resolve. All of it getting in the way of life just living. Oddly, even this is a deception. Nothing gets in the way. Even in self deception there was always just living.
There is a tribe in the Amazon that speaks a language with no terms for I, me, you or my. Perhaps they are not so fooled into believing themselves. It is a very simple language but it could be the only honest language on earth. What a blessing it might be to be born there. But who knows, they might be fooled too.
3) How does it feel to see this? describe in detail.
In most ways it feels the same as before. Chop wood, carry water. The main difference is that whenever I use self referential words I know what it actually refers to, an idea. Its a real idea but to what it refers is not. It's like Superman or the Easter Bunny. Subject matter. I never really believed in Santa Claus but I did believe in Clark. Like all the people playing Santa at the mall, Clark is a role being played by an organism.
The other big implication to this realization is that there is no one to protect or uphold. There is no courage necessary to live in liberation either because nothing is in danger. All that effort that was expended to maintain the illusion of Clarkness no longer need be expended. This is what is meant by liberation. This expression of life can really emerge any way it needs to. It always has, actually. But for whatever reason, it needed to emerge for a while as a consciousness restrained by illusion. Now it emerges as a consciousness pure and simple. The concept of self is still there, but is seen as such; a concept, a role, not a reality. That's all.
I suspect that this is only the beginning. The implications of this are still emerging. Life is ever curious and open to itself.
4) How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion but is curious about it.
I probably would tell them that they don't exist. They would disagree and I would invite them to enter into a discussion about it.
If they were willing I would probably start by asking them to describe themselves. That would help reveal the content of their illusion, establishing what will later be disproven. We could then discuss what is and is not "real" in order to make sure that we were on the same footing regarding what comprises reality. Perhaps we could agree upon "reality" as a word that describes that which is perceivable as opposed to that which is merely conceivable.
Perhaps then we could discuss the perceivability of collections, encouraging them to actually perceive the reality of a flock or team that is distinct from the elements that comprise it. This would help them see the distinction between concept and reality. The emptiness of forms.
Perhaps then we would be ready to discuss their prior self description. What of it is perceivable vs merely conceivable? I would encourage them to try to perceive themselves. Not to conceive themselves but actually witness whatever it is they call "me", referring to their previous self description. I would keep insisting that they witness it, bringing elements of our previous conversation back to frame their search.
I would remind them that they are a collection that moves as if alive but is not perceivable, and therefore is not manifest. I would mention fictional characters. I would ask them to look at their mundane actions like shaving or walking to see if there were a "me" doing them. Do the actions require a doing?
Eventually, unless they got indignant and left the conversation the concept of self would fall away. At some point there must be desire to resolve he conflict. No "person" can be forced to see it.
5) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look? was there a specific moment when seeing happened or was it gradual? what exactly happened?
I had actually almost given up. I had a solid intellectual understanding of it but it still felt like a "me" driving things. After weeks of intense focus on the topic it seemed like there were no way to actually act from that understanding. I could see the non-directedness of mundane acts like buttoning a shirt but there still seemed like there was a person directing thoughts.
I had just read "charles" in gateless gatecrashers that morning. I was getting lunch at work when the song "I am superman" popped into awareness and I stopped to consider the reality of that. I simply looked, not in any forced or contrived way but very innocently. Like a child realizing that their imaginary friend was never there. There was no effort about it. It just became obvious.
The turning point was when I actually allowed myself to acknowledge the reality of myself as a detailed fiction, like superman. It was suddenly coherent with what I had come to accept intellectually but not experientially, until then.
The implications of that became clear: no one to protect, no one to maintain. Instantly there was understanding why it was called liberation. Freedom from me, not for me. The concept of self arises as automatically and non-directed as any other thought. There was no one Clarking. Further more, since there is no me then there is no separation between me and the world. There is only the world.
Although it was kind of a sudden realization it is still new. I continue to check in with the new found understanding and reconfirm the lack of self. Every time the result is immediate and obvious. No self. The reality of it is becoming more natural every time. What a journey!
Deepest thanks to all of those involved with liberation unleashed. I would also like to thank my father who decades ago, worried about my new interest in Buddhism asked me "who wants to know?". I didn't understand at the time, nor do I know if he did, but his question stuck with me, drawing me to examine the words of others asking that same question but demanding an answer. And finally, deepest thanks Andrew for demanding so gracefully. The student was ready, the teacher appeared.
I typed this on the flight to Barcelona. It was a good opportunity to reflect and refine the understanding. So here goes...
1) Is there a 'me', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
No. There was an assumption that "I" existed but nothing more. That assumption was based largely on the dependence on self referential semantics in language and the observation of behavioral patterns extrapolated to imply an actual form expressing those patterns, where there was none. Ever.
If there are any lingering doubts that this understanding is honest then those doubts are immediately seen for what they are, spontaneously arising thoughts in the mind. I don't doubt because there is no me.
2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works.
I have frequently referred to a flock of birds in this discussion. I remember in college watching a flock move and flow as if it were one organism. I suddenly understood that there was no such organism. There was observation of a pattern but that's all. There was no more than a bunch of separate birds behaving in a social concert that appeared the the observer to have inherent form. After that I could see it in all collections: the rich, children, Libertarians, Buddhists, women, teams, marriage, even a comic book collection. It became clear that these were all just mental models for implied relationships within observed collections of things manifest, not anything manifest of itself. But I never applied it to myself until now.
What happens is a subtle trick that follows from an unquestioned assumption of the existence of a manifest identity, or character. But just because something can be described doesn't mean it can be observed. It only means that it can be conceived. And that's the trick; mistaking a conception of self for a perception of self. There is no perception of self; only conception.
It probably starts at a young age with the introduction of language. The structure of language uses "I" and "me" as nouns when they are actually closer to verbs. As the language is learned the programming begins. Parents, teaches and friends observe patterns of behavior in others and say "You are this and that", be it complimentary or not. Advertising tells us what to identify with as a boy or a girl. As children we pick up on the tone of these statements and incorporate them into our idea of self. After a while that idea becomes so full it seems to have tangible reality; a reality that must be self consistent in order to have the appearance of existence. It takes a lot of effort to maintain a coherent self image so when it is threatened by conflicting thoughts the dissonance causes even more effort to resolve. All of it getting in the way of life just living. Oddly, even this is a deception. Nothing gets in the way. Even in self deception there was always just living.
There is a tribe in the Amazon that speaks a language with no terms for I, me, you or my. Perhaps they are not so fooled into believing themselves. It is a very simple language but it could be the only honest language on earth. What a blessing it might be to be born there. But who knows, they might be fooled too.
3) How does it feel to see this? describe in detail.
In most ways it feels the same as before. Chop wood, carry water. The main difference is that whenever I use self referential words I know what it actually refers to, an idea. Its a real idea but to what it refers is not. It's like Superman or the Easter Bunny. Subject matter. I never really believed in Santa Claus but I did believe in Clark. Like all the people playing Santa at the mall, Clark is a role being played by an organism.
The other big implication to this realization is that there is no one to protect or uphold. There is no courage necessary to live in liberation either because nothing is in danger. All that effort that was expended to maintain the illusion of Clarkness no longer need be expended. This is what is meant by liberation. This expression of life can really emerge any way it needs to. It always has, actually. But for whatever reason, it needed to emerge for a while as a consciousness restrained by illusion. Now it emerges as a consciousness pure and simple. The concept of self is still there, but is seen as such; a concept, a role, not a reality. That's all.
I suspect that this is only the beginning. The implications of this are still emerging. Life is ever curious and open to itself.
4) How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion but is curious about it.
I probably would tell them that they don't exist. They would disagree and I would invite them to enter into a discussion about it.
If they were willing I would probably start by asking them to describe themselves. That would help reveal the content of their illusion, establishing what will later be disproven. We could then discuss what is and is not "real" in order to make sure that we were on the same footing regarding what comprises reality. Perhaps we could agree upon "reality" as a word that describes that which is perceivable as opposed to that which is merely conceivable.
Perhaps then we could discuss the perceivability of collections, encouraging them to actually perceive the reality of a flock or team that is distinct from the elements that comprise it. This would help them see the distinction between concept and reality. The emptiness of forms.
Perhaps then we would be ready to discuss their prior self description. What of it is perceivable vs merely conceivable? I would encourage them to try to perceive themselves. Not to conceive themselves but actually witness whatever it is they call "me", referring to their previous self description. I would keep insisting that they witness it, bringing elements of our previous conversation back to frame their search.
I would remind them that they are a collection that moves as if alive but is not perceivable, and therefore is not manifest. I would mention fictional characters. I would ask them to look at their mundane actions like shaving or walking to see if there were a "me" doing them. Do the actions require a doing?
Eventually, unless they got indignant and left the conversation the concept of self would fall away. At some point there must be desire to resolve he conflict. No "person" can be forced to see it.
5) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look? was there a specific moment when seeing happened or was it gradual? what exactly happened?
I had actually almost given up. I had a solid intellectual understanding of it but it still felt like a "me" driving things. After weeks of intense focus on the topic it seemed like there were no way to actually act from that understanding. I could see the non-directedness of mundane acts like buttoning a shirt but there still seemed like there was a person directing thoughts.
I had just read "charles" in gateless gatecrashers that morning. I was getting lunch at work when the song "I am superman" popped into awareness and I stopped to consider the reality of that. I simply looked, not in any forced or contrived way but very innocently. Like a child realizing that their imaginary friend was never there. There was no effort about it. It just became obvious.
The turning point was when I actually allowed myself to acknowledge the reality of myself as a detailed fiction, like superman. It was suddenly coherent with what I had come to accept intellectually but not experientially, until then.
The implications of that became clear: no one to protect, no one to maintain. Instantly there was understanding why it was called liberation. Freedom from me, not for me. The concept of self arises as automatically and non-directed as any other thought. There was no one Clarking. Further more, since there is no me then there is no separation between me and the world. There is only the world.
Although it was kind of a sudden realization it is still new. I continue to check in with the new found understanding and reconfirm the lack of self. Every time the result is immediate and obvious. No self. The reality of it is becoming more natural every time. What a journey!
Deepest thanks to all of those involved with liberation unleashed. I would also like to thank my father who decades ago, worried about my new interest in Buddhism asked me "who wants to know?". I didn't understand at the time, nor do I know if he did, but his question stuck with me, drawing me to examine the words of others asking that same question but demanding an answer. And finally, deepest thanks Andrew for demanding so gracefully. The student was ready, the teacher appeared.
Re: Looking for my self
Nicely done Clark.I'll see if any other guides have anymore questions and get back to you soon.
Cheers
Andrew
Cheers
Andrew
Re: Looking for my self
One more thing. This is hard to put into words. The point of acknowledging the lack of a person is to recognize that consciousness is non locatable. The body-mind is of the world of form. Consciousness is of the world of awareness. Neither can exist without the other. But form is locatable while awareness is not. I am awareness, drawn into the world of form. The body-mind is a focal point for the witnessing of form. Form can not exist without a witness nor a witness without form.
The idea of personhood is a witnessing of patterns in memory but awareness is not located in memory. Awareness is non locatable. Awareness witnesses though the body-mind but is not the body-mind. Awareness gets so drawn into witnessing the world of form that it "forgets" it's own nature.
Awakening is merely the body-mind's acknowledgement of its true role in relation to consciousness. Consciousness does not awaken. It was never any different.
The idea of personhood is a witnessing of patterns in memory but awareness is not located in memory. Awareness is non locatable. Awareness witnesses though the body-mind but is not the body-mind. Awareness gets so drawn into witnessing the world of form that it "forgets" it's own nature.
Awakening is merely the body-mind's acknowledgement of its true role in relation to consciousness. Consciousness does not awaken. It was never any different.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 117 guests